Wow - that page reads like a step-by-step guide on how to violate the Robinson-Patman Act. Too bad we haven't had any real consumer protection enforcement in the US since the 1970s.

Think this was more about the business side than the execution side.

They can be just fine if Linux desktop is seen as 'acceptable' in the mass market. The operative word being 'seen', not if it should be acceptable, but if people believe it to be.

It's a tall order to shift the perception of the mass market.

If Microsoft screws over their users, and now 'just enough laptop' can be bought from Apple within a price range long deemed 'adequate', then AMD/Intel essentially *need* people to decide they *love* linux desktops, and broadly speaking at this point the mass market is "a device that runs a browser and who cares about OS as long as it's not actively pissing me off".

It actually might go badly for Linux desktops if Windows screws up their market share too badly. Apple does not give a shit about Linux support and so Linux desktop largely lives on the standardized ecosystem in x86 side in part thanks to the separation of concerns between the hardware vendors and Microsoft. If Microsoft managed to kill the Windows desktop hypothetically, might be hard pressed to have any hardware for Linux desktops to run on anymore...

Because GenAI screws up, and screwing up is less of a big deal for the attacker, but can be a huge deal for the defender.

Attacking GenAI fails and either your attempt does nothing and you are no worse off, or it accidentally trashes a system that you were trying to control or copy data from, but you didn't care about that

Well, compared to the Windows release strategy...

Is finding, reporting, and fixing latent bugs in C or C++ code a practical purpose? Because they're doing a damn good job of that.

If you have access to its command-input interface, either you own the system and are expected to be able to manipulate it, or you've somehow obtained unauthorized access, in which case it has a security problem, and it would be an equally serious problem for a non-AI system.

You could mine Bitcoin, I suppose, but the obvious thing to do would be charge up your EV. Energy storage on wheels!

That's assuming that you even publish the code at all. Looks like they would keep their codebase internal.

GenAI is a bit nicer for offense than defense.

If you are an attacker, the time and consequences of a GenAI mistakes can be more easily ignored. Whoops, an attack that didn't work but you weren't going to succeed anyway. If it screws up the target in a way that you didn't actually want, you may have an opportunity cost because you wanted that data or to ransom the data, but you didn't care *that* much about the data. It's actually a pretty unambiguous 'win' for malicious users since the usual downsides don't matter.

If doing defense, the consequences of GenAI mistakes are more costly. An erroneous security fix actually becomes a hole. A change that loses data is data you actually care about.

All that said, I'm not sure closed sourcing and maintaining an open fork would realistically do anything. I doubt the proprietary fork would be sufficiently different to protect them from hypothetical security issues in their codebase.

n/t

And thousands of other comparable pivots went nowhere.

At least with amazon, you could connect the dots, ok, we are investing in an online bookstore, ok, now they are selling more stuff, but it's still selling online stuff... Many years later they start being seen as a compute vendor, but only after they had shown in-house prowess for years prior.

This is just coming out of nowhere with no continuity purporting to mysteriously outmaneuver every existing player despite the big issues in their way being well known and aren't going to be alleviated unless you make your own fabs and chips...

No I think the proposers of this think the only effect is that people won't be able to print guns on a 3D printer. They are wrong (both about it stopping the printing of guns, and that this being the only effect), but I really don't think they are planning some different objective.

Ok, guess I'll give it a shot:

AI AI AI AI AI AI. Give me funding.

That should do it.

A company that has zero demonstrated technological assets, whose only logistics experience pertains to shoes...

And they vaguely purport to be able to secure compute hardware better than all the existing players out there, despite everyone knowing exactly where the bottlenecks are and who is clogging them up...

What idiots invested in this concept? How many millions can I get if I just randomly declare I'm going to get more and better GPUs than all the well known AI players?

PS I am not a gun nut. If guns were illegal then printing parts of them using a 3D printer would also be illegal and you could get in a lot of trouble if you do it. But after the fact, don't try to prevent it first.

Is cooking equipment supposed to not work if it figures out it is being used to make drugs?